There are three major trends in American society that must be addressed when the Senate next week debates the federal budget. First, the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major nation in the industrialized world, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. Second, it is a national disgrace that we have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. More than 18 percent of our kids live in poverty. Third, year after year, we have had record-breaking deficits and our national debt will soon be $10 trillion. That is a grossly unfair burden to leave to our kids and grandchildren. It also is economically unsustainable.
I plan to offer an amendment that addresses these issues, to change our national priorities, and to move this country in a very different direction than where we have been going in the last seven years.
According to the latest available statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of Americans earned significantly more income in 2005 than the bottom 50 percent. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently reported that the wealthiest 1 percent saw total income rise by $180,000 in 2005. That is more than the average middle-class family makes in three years. The CBO also found that the total share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit the highest level on record, while the middle class and working families received the smallest share of after-tax income on record.
Meanwhile, while the rich have become much richer, nearly 5 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty over the past seven years, including over 1 million of our children.
We have a moral responsibility to put children ahead of millionaires and billionaires. That is why, during the Senate’s consideration of the budget resolution, I will offer an amendment to restore the top income tax bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million a year.
Restoring the top income tax bracket for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000 would increase revenue by $32.5 billion over the next three years, according to the Joint Tax Committee, including $10.8 billion next year alone.
I would devote that revenue the needs of our children; job creation; and deficit reduction.
Instead of giving $32.5 billion in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, my amendment would, over the next three years, provide:
• $10 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to help about 7 million children with disabilities and, in the process, relieve pressure on local property taxpayers.
• $5 billion for Head Start -- a program which has been cut by more than 11 percent since 2002. Today, less than half of all eligible children are enrolled in Head Start. Only about 3 percent of all eligible children are enrolled in Early Head Start. My amendment would begin to correct this situation.
• $4 billion for the Child Care Development Block Grant. Today, due to inadequate funding, only about one in seven eligible children are able to receive federal child care assistance. Already, 250,000 fewer children receive child care assistance today than in 2000.
• $3 billion for school construction. According to the most recent estimates, schools across the country have a $100 billion backlog in badly-needed school repairs. Investing $3 billion is a small, but important step to help repair crumbling schools across the country and, in the process, create tens of thousands of jobs for painters, carpenters, electricians, and construction workers.
• $4 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program so that low-income families with children, seniors on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities will be able to stay warm in the winter. After adjusting for energy prices and inflation, the heating assistance program has been cut by 34.5 percent or $1.3 billion compared to 2002. My amendment would begin to reverse this trend.
• $3 billion for food stamps, so that we can begin to reduce the growing number of children and adults living with food insecurity. x
• $3 billion to reduce the deficit.
This amendment is a fiscally responsible way to reduce childhood poverty, address an income gap greater than at any time since the Roaring Twenties, and lower our deficit. Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, is a member of the Senate Budget Committee.
Bernie Sanders is the independent U.S. Senator from Vermont. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history. He is a member of the Senate's Budget, Veterans, Environment, Energy, and H.E.L.P. (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) committees.
I almost wish I lived in Vermont so I could vote for him, but , as a long term Californian I recognise the climatic incompatabilities of that move.
I wholeheartedly support the Senator in his quest to eliminate the unfair and inequitable burden of taxation by ending the tax gifts to the wealthiest , ironically the ones who can most afford to pay their fair share. Most of that tax break never sees the light of day, going as it does to folks who already have all the disposable income they will ever need. Thus the myth that it helps the economy is only one of the lies we are told.
I further applaud the delegation of those funds, worthy goals all. I do have to note that I believe that Senator Sanders, even in the climate of a possible Democratic White House and Congress, will be unable to attain said goal. The voting record is plain for all to see. When those tax breaks were enacted the democrats were of course in the minority, yet two things are evident. Firstly , there were democratic votes aplenty for that gift, and secondly, we have seen of late how a minority (GOP) can block legislation they do not favor yet the democrats failed to use the same advantage then. Are we so certain they will pass such now? I am not.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 8:58:41 AM
I don't have children by CHOICE Bernie because I saw from the early 70s we were headed into a OVERPOPULATION of our natural reasources, there were EXPO after EXPO in the 70s "warning us" that if we OVERPOPULATE we will be hurting the planet and ourselves. Meanwhile, those who OVERPOPULATE by choice, are being rewarded by the US government and my taxes? And excuse me Bernie, but if I was a parent, I wouldn't want what kind of education and choices you are offering for my tax dollars.
The rich will be richer with your way Bernie because the rich don't need or want the crap you buy with tax dollars. Give us our taxes and let us buiold our own communities. I don't want YOU to nurse me Bernie. I want you to protect my rights to nurse myself. The rich don't need you Bernie and you know that.
by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:37:59 AM
Jeanette Doney, wherever did you get the idea that poor uneducated people didn't have babies, babies that contribute to the problems of overpopulation? Doesn't it make sense to offer the kinds of help that Sen. Sanders proposes – Head Start, child care, schools, home energy help, food stamps? The answer to overpopulation is not for responsible people to forgo having children. It's for responsible people to have a responsible number of children, and for us all, through our tax dollars, to demand better education, especially of girls and women, and a more equitable distribution of wealth.
by
L.M. Arndt (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 5:34:37 PM
Bernie, these are a good start, but will do nothing to change the economic disparities in our country.
The ratio of rich to poor is unfathomable. The creation of dynastic wealth, wealth past on from generation to generation simply because kids are born into the affluent families, must end.
The 1% are wealthy because they get the "wealth effect" from all the workers - who are robbed of their contributions to society. Their efforts through profit and increased stock prices, flows to the ownership class, while the workers conditions, those that built that wealth, drastically deteriorate, because they do not "own" they have no say in the structure or running of the companies they work for. They do not equitably share in the prosperity their contributions generate. The wealth is transferred up and those that truly create, are robbed. It's a horrible economic model, somehow we should all share in the wealth of our society, not concentrate in the hands of a few - that would rather see this country deteriorate into anarchy then provide and lead the change to meaningful and peaceful reforms.
But then why would the superwealthy voluntarily give up one penny of their ill gotten gains? Through an elaborately devised system set up to rob the poor and working classes of their labor?
Trickle down economics? Try "Reverse Robbinhood" economic policy.
How are we going to put an end to the "ownership" classes? The transfer of dynastic wealth, excessive CEO pay, Stock Option pay, the the root causes of the fundamental economic and societal problems and the "proprietary protections" that corporations enjoy, hide behind and that allow them to operate illicitly and secretly behind the corporate veil. Services deregulated and core government functions privatized and shifted to the corporate sector then operating behind walls of secrecy. How do we pierce the corporate veil for corporations offering "public service"? How do we understand how much profit they have, who it goes to and how they rob the people of their tax dollars?
People work more, have less time for their families, standards of living are stagnate and declining in the middle class. Meanwhile record wealth built at the top, transfer of wealth out of the country, the moral and social contract broken by the very people that benefit.
I applaud the effort you are making, but really, it does nothing to change the fundamental model that transfers the work of the working classes into wealth for the elite.
The pittance you are requesting will be met with "much resistance" even as the pockets of the wealthy continue to swell by the damage they have already done to all the efforts made at putting in societal protections. They have been fundamentally eroded and destroyed over the last 30 years.
But this economic model never worked for the people. The people that labor and toil, that build and contribute to our society, have always been robbed by the "ownership" classes. It's time that we re-think "ownership" in this society.
We all "own" collectively, many of the things that the rich profit from. Creating a world where no one "owns" the wealth of another's efforts - is the fundamental change that is needed.
We need a new economic model, one in which hard work is rewarded, but not excessively. Where there are no "dynastic" and generational owners. One in which, there is a "societal" dividend and the wealth truly "lifts all boats".
Capitalism, Super Capitalism, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, the Health Industrial Complex, the Financial Complex - all are stealing from the people and giving to the elite 1%.
Time to change our thinking, we need to create a democratic economic model that lifts all boats.
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 430 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM
I beg to differ in your assessment of such taxation being illegal, would you care to teach me why? I clue as to what you see replacing such federal income tax might be nice as well, or do you believe the roads will fix themselves, the bridges repair themselves, the police and fire departments work for free?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, March 8, 2008 at 9:46:22 PM
Whether the income tax is illegal is something very hotly debated among the liberty minded. One area where there is no disagreement is that the enforcement of the income tax is not only immoral but runs roughshod over our 4th & 5th amendment rights.
As to how to maintain roads, police & firefighters, I would remind you that the money for them comes from sources other than the income tax, which acounts for just under 1/2 of the federal mafia's revenue. We'll all be better off if they don't get that money.
by
Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 125 quicklinks, 79 diaries, 601 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 9:38:26 PM
Sorry but your "illegality" is more opinion than fact
Noone with a scrap of sanity debates the legality of the income tax, many debate the uses to which it is put however. No good citizen denies that she has an obligation to the community as the community has an obligation to her.
Taxes are the revenue with which governments maintain the infrastructure that you use ,apparently without much thought. It is the right, perhaps even the obligation, of a citizen to demand both an accounting of those expenditures and a much wiser and economical dispersing thereof. There was a time in this nation's history when tariffs were our sole source of income, as late as the Civil War such revenue still accounted for about 50% of said revenue. That is no longer the case.
There is, I understand, a small but vocal portion of our citizenry who are so selfish and self involved that they think they have no obligation to the state whatsoever. Thakfully they are small and powerless indeed. I would urge you to pick better battles and understand how this nation needs your help with real problems.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 8:22:07 AM
Sorry but your "illegality" is more opinion than fact
Yes, that's what I said.
Noone with a scrap of sanity
Usually, those who use ad hominems don't have much substance behind them. Anyway, bear in mind that I said the enforcement of the income tax was immoral & illegal, not the tax itself.
debates the legality of the income tax, many debate the uses to which it is put however. No good citizen denies that she has an obligation to the community as the community has an obligation to her.
Indeed, but the government isn't the community. As Thomas Paine put it:
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins."
Taxes are the revenue with which governments maintain the infrastructure that you use ,apparently without much thought.
It's also the revenue they use to do terrible things like fight imperial wars & oppress the people. Not to mention that forcing people to part with their money is stealing it.
The infrastructure would be better if it were private. I'd happily pay a business to use their private property, I will never voluntarily give a dime to a government.
It is the right, perhaps even the obligation, of a citizen to demand both an accounting of those expenditures and a much wiser and economical dispersing thereof.
Perhaps, but when you get down to it the citizens are powerless before the government. How do people really control the government?
There was a time in this nation's history when tariffs were our sole source of income, as late as the Civil War such revenue still accounted for about 50% of said revenue. That is no longer the case.
It was also the case that the government at all levels combined took in only 5% of GDP. It must have been nice back then.
There is, I understand, a small but vocal portion of our citizenry who are so selfish and self involved that they think they have no obligation to the state whatsoever. Thakfully they are small and powerless indeed. I would urge you to pick better battles and understand how this nation needs your help with real problems.
So now being an advocate of liberty makes one "selfish and self involved"? We owe nothing to the gang of thugs known as the state. We'd be much better off without them. Then we could start dealing with the problems at hand.
Remember that governments thrive on crisis'. They delibarately cause problems to expand their power. They are the problem, not the solution.
by
Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 125 quicklinks, 79 diaries, 601 comments)
on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 9:29:20 PM
Excellent! There will no doubt be wailing about "class warfare," but the numbers speak for themselves. This entire nation is being held in thrall by a fraction of one percent of its population. When government fails to require the very wealthy to pay a fair share, those extra dollars do NOT go into job creation. They are poured back into the stock market, and into hedge funds and other financial schemes such as mortgage-backed "securities." Claims are made of creating wealth, but there's no real wealth there!
It's long past time for Congress, representing We The People, to take steps to reverse the suck-up economy and create a FAIR America, one in which we all have opportunity, and yes, people can become rich, but not filthy rich. Some possibilities in addition to raising the upper-level-income tax rate:
• Raise the minimum wage and tie it to the cost-of-living. Corporations tout their productivity, but that productivity must be shared with the people who created it – the workers.
• Require that corporations pay employees a reasonable minimum of their top executive's TOTAL compensation. [In Japan and in Europe executives earn a ratio of 15:1 and 20:1 when comparing the executive position to the least paid employee within the company. In the U.S. the ratio is 301:1. The Modern Business World, January 28, 2008]
• Government investment in reestablishing an industrial base (alternate energy, i.e., wind, solar, tidal; NOT ethanol, which takes almost as much fossil fuel to produce as it contains; also investment in infrastructure). NO NATION CAN HAVE A HEALTHY ECONOMY WITHOUT AN INDUSTRIAL BASE, creating something tangible to sell!)
• Require corporations to pay taxes and close the loopholes of overseas offices.
• Raise the level of income subject to Social Security.
• Tax dividends.
• End corporate welfare (the "farm" bill is a disgrace!)
• Government investment in elementary and high schools and upper education, including technical schools. (There are not enough professional jobs to engage all college graduates!)
We seem to be able to haul out the national credit card for invasions, wars, and occupations. Why not divert those borrowed funds to our own betterment?
L.M. Arndt
by
L.M. Arndt (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 2:47:36 PM
We seem to be able to haul out the national credit card for invasions, wars, and occupations. Why not divert those borrowed funds to our own betterment?
Because welfare & warfare go hand in hand. The government powerful enough to deliver the butter is also powerful enough to deliver the guns. It will be increasingly preasured to seek foriegn adventures as the economy sags under the stifling taxation & regulation of the interventionist state. FDR & the US entry into WW II is a great example of this.
by
Darren Wolfe (4 articles, 125 quicklinks, 79 diaries, 601 comments)
on Friday, March 14, 2008 at 5:51:47 AM
I can see the advantages of raising taxes of the wealthiest 1% and then spending the extra resources on positive improvements within our nations boarders, but your position stated "
e have had record-breaking deficits and our national debt will soon be $10 trillion. That is a grossly unfair burden to leave to our kids and grandchildren. It also is economically unsustainable."
But your plan spends just about all of that new money. Paying off a ten trillion dollar debt with a three billion dollar bonus each year does not seem very practical. After 300 years we will be 10% closer to relieving the burden.
Bernie your plan is a good way to help fund some quality programs. What really needs to happen is a complete budget reform. Appropriate appropriation of funds rather then wreckless spending. Is what we are spending our money on going to positively impact the future or just get us through the current situation. We cannot keep our same course and expect things to get better. Especially now when it seems that we are pouring more money in overseas operations then the goverment is spending on keeping the american people safe at home with financial, educational, and health needs.
The increase you talk about is a small step in the right direction of propper allocation of funds.
by
Ben Kall (0 articles, 15 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 31 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 4:36:44 PM
The good news is that we are no longer throwing 100 billion dollars per year down a rathole in Iraq; we are now throwing 200 billion dollars per year down a rathole in Iraq. Senator Sanders is not a Democrat, and he cannot be held responsible for the failure of the Democrats to reverse the inequitable tax policies legislated by the Republicans during the period from 2001 to 2006, but the inequitable tax structure in the United States is an abomination. The Democrats in the current Congress have not exerted much effort to reverse the government-assisted redistribution of wealth to the most affluent members of society, and this disparity has gotten worse every year that George W. Bush has been President. Because most members of Congress think that average, honest taxpayers are chumps, the Democrats in Congress have not shown any determination to revise even the most inequitable tax cuts engineered during the past seven years, the Democrats have not shown any determination to close loopholes for offshore tax havens, the Democrats have not shown any determination to close tax loopholes that subsidize outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries, and the Democrats have not shown any determination to place reasonable tax liabilities on profits for hedge funds and private equity funds. The Democrats in Congress also have been been complicit in the failure of Congress to provide enough staff to the Internal Revenue Service to enable this agency to investigate massive illegal tax evasion (often by the most wealthy individuals and corporations) and to enable the Internal Revenue Service to collect some of the billions upon billions of tax dollars that are owed but never paid year after year. Obstructionist tactics by the Republicans in Congress have made it extremely difficult for the Democrats to enact legislation, but the Democrats have not made any serious effort to advance progressive tax legislation, which at least could be used as a vehicle to demonstrate to voters why elections should matter. It is true that 40 Senators can hold legislation hostage, but if those 40 Senators never have to exercise their right to filibuster, the finer points of this civics lesson are lost on most voters. Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress are quick to admit defeat even before they begin to fight, and there are too many Democrats in Congress who do not even support the effort for tax reform.
by
Blaine Kinsey (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 11:33:33 AM
